Author: Dann Corbit
Date: 16:43:56 05/15/01
Go up one level in this thread
On May 15, 2001 at 19:42:23, Dann Corbit wrote:
>On May 15, 2001 at 19:29:24, Martin Schubert wrote:
>[snip]
>>Some algorithms sort in O(n*n), some in O(n*log n). You say the difference is
>>unimportant?
>
>I don't know of any practical algorithm that sorts in O(n*n) {Though I know some
>joke alrgorithms that are even worse}.
Urp, I was thinking of n^n. Of course, there are O(n^2) algorithms for sorting.
I've already got a basket of them. Having another bad math day. I think I
need to go and play some basketball.
>I would love to get a copy of such a thing to add to my collection.
>
>Be that as it may, the point at which a demonstration was attempted was this:
>
>If we say that an algorithm with limited input is O(1) because it will complete
>in some finite time, then all algorithms are O(1). This is not a particularly
>useful definition from the standpoint of practical computation, but it is
>interesting mathematically (I suppose). The previous poster was making the
>opposite point -- that it is useful to characterize algorithms as to how they
>perform for a given change in n. And that conversely, it is less useful to
>simply say that since the input is finite and the algorithm terminates, it is
>O(1).
>
>At this point, I *truly* regret starting this thread. It [the semantics
>arguments] won't make our chess programs run any better and it doesn't seem to
>want to tail out.
This page took 0 seconds to execute
Last modified: Thu, 15 Apr 21 08:11:13 -0700
Current Computer Chess Club Forums at Talkchess. This site by Sean Mintz.